It's all about reading the tea leaves these days or just shutting off the internet. Reading D Smith's blog this morning (whatever opinion you have, he seems to be well connected and keeps things in perspective), I thought he put a bit too much emphasis on what plan B might be. Was also interested to hear that Triano was part of the recruit team. So that said, the Ford chat tips the scale the other way. Good times. Wake me when it's over.

First, Lin only qualifies for partial "Bird Rights" so I would think that a "poison pill" contract would at least create a pause for NY. He would also have just as great (if not greater) positive financial impact as Nash. So why did they go after Nash? My guess is you could structure Nash's deal as a two year contract with a player option third year, while Lin would have to be a four year contract.

Both are huge gambles on the basketball front, I guess 2 years is less of a gamble than 4.

Telfair's biggest issue has always been maturity. Kid had a documentary out when he was still in high school, AAU, Ruckers anointing him way to early. He would have been a beast if he spent a year under a disciplinary coach in college/Europe and is finally maturing (maybe too late, hopefully not). I have no clue why I'm talking about Telfair...

My issue with this Nash deal: What happens when in two years and Nash is a bench player? Sure you've made the playoffs once, if your lucky twice, but you've auctioned the future to handle his contract. Now you have to rebuild but you're unwilling to unload an expiring contract because of sentimentality. This means overpaying in free agency again and continuing the cycle of mediocrity.

Meanwhile, one thing that seems abundantly clear is Jeremy Lin will be re-signed regardless of what another team offers him as a restricted free agent. The pursuit of a veteran PG is not just to help the team win now, but also to invest in Lin's development. You can't find anyone in the organization that doesn't believe in Jeremy Lin. He is, and will remain, a Knick.

First impulse is to say too bad Mike D'Antoni wasn't recruiting Steve Nash yesterday during his visit to #Knicks practice site in Tarrytown (no NYC meeting as everyone else reported). Nash holds D'Antoni near and dear and spoke this week about what "a shame'' it was his stint ended without ever getting a stable roster. But flip side. Is Suns owner Robert Sarver, who despises D'Antoni, really trying to execute and sign and trade if it means Nash and D'Antoni reuniting? Maybe not.

It may have been a formality, a bargaining tool for Steve Nash, but the Knicks at least took the first step of meeting with the free-agent point guard Sunday on the first day of free agency.
Howard Simmons/New York Daily News
Howard Simmons/New York Daily News

Though the Knicks can't offer Nash the NBA title expectations that some can and they can't match the salary figures reportedly thrown at him by Toronto, who also met with him and offered up a three-year deal worth between $30 million and $36 million, they did what they could do — showed him their sincere interest.

The Knicks, who have asserted that they will bring back free-agent point guard Jeremy Lin, still need a veteran to back up Lin or to serve as a mentor. Nash certainly would fit in the latter category as a two-time Most Valuable Player, who even at 38 is among the game's best floor leaders.

The Knicks can offer Nash a deal starting at just over $3 million in the first year. Though their prospects for immediate success may be better than Toronto's, that is a lot of money to make up for the Canadian native. Though they can attempt a sign-and-trade deal with the Suns, the Knicks have few trade chips worthwhile.

Nash, who has spent his summers living in Greenwich Village for years now, did not rule out the Knicks when his former coach Mike D'Antoni walked away. Former Phoenix teammate Amar'e Stoudemire remains in place, and at least a semblance of the offense that was run under D'Antoni is intact.

The Knicks remain a long shot for Nash, but they can offer a big three in the frontcourt of Stoudemire, Tyson Chandler and Carmelo Anthony. But Anthony drove D'Antoni away, as the forward did not fit in with the style of play that Nash excelled in at Phoenix.

The Knicks also are expected to speak with Raymond Felton and Jason Kidd. With Baron Davis sidelined for the season, the Knicks need a veteran to pair with Lin, who even with the onset of Linsanity started just 25 games before his season came to an end with a torn meniscus.

First, Lin only qualifies for partial "Bird Rights" so I would think that a "poison pill" contract would at least create a pause for NY. He would also have just as great (if not greater) positive financial impact as Nash. So why did they go after Nash? My guess is you could structure Nash's deal as a two year contract with a player option third year, while Lin would have to be a four year contract.

Both are huge gambles on the basketball front, I guess 2 years is less of a gamble than 4.

Telfair's biggest issue has always been maturity. Kid had a documentary out when he was still in high school, AAU, Ruckers anointing him way to early. He would have been a beast if he spent a year under a disciplinary coach in college/Europe and is finally maturing (maybe too late, hopefully not). I have no clue why I'm talking about Telfair...

My issue with this Nash deal: What happens when in two years and Nash is a bench player? Sure you've made the playoffs once, if your lucky twice, but you've auctioned the future to handle his contract. Now you have to rebuild but you're unwilling to unload an expiring contract because of sentimentality. This means overpaying in free agency again and continuing the cycle of mediocrity.

I am thinking somewhat on the same lines. A S and T however must be for at least 3 years not counting an option and only the first year has to be guaranteed. So why not front load it. I am a big Nash booster so if he wants 3 years he would get it.

Front loading the contract would give us more cap room in your after two year scenario when I believe we could be pushing for the higher echelon of the league

My issue with this Nash deal: What happens when in two years and Nash is a bench player? Sure you've made the playoffs once, if your lucky twice, but you've auctioned the future to handle his contract.

This is where I really disagree. How do we auction off our future? We're signing him as a free agent, not trading away our assets. The only player we'd end up saying goodbye to is Calderon if all the sign and trade/amnesty speculation is true. If we sign Nash, we will have a less advantageous draft pick slotting next year, but so what? How did that draft slotting help us this year?

I think the "auctioning of the future" conversation will be had in all honesty after this Nash signing.. I'm certain that Colangelo will be putting together some kind of package to bring us a legitimate small forward to really make the Nash experiment work. That would definitely cost us something. This? Some rich guy will have to spend some money. Sounds good to me.

Yeah, that's why he's been a starting point guard for all these years right?

Unfounded sarcasm over an unfounded claim. Do your research before you start blowing shit up.

Telfair was a starter during most of his Minny days.

Just because he can do what almost every other point guard can do, doesn't mean you can run the team well. If he did all those things well, he would be an all-star and starting over Steve Nash right? Nope. The guy sure has ability, but does it necessarily impact the team's success during a game.

I take it you have never seen Telfair in an actual game in your life. Ofc he can't run the team as well as Nash or any other elite PG, but that doesn't mean he's bad at it.

If you're going to affirm the consequent at least do it right.

And learn to use the edit button.

blackjitsu wrote:

Some interesting stuff.

First, Lin only qualifies for partial "Bird Rights" so I would think that a "poison pill" contract would at least create a pause for NY. He would also have just as great (if not greater) positive financial impact as Nash. So why did they go after Nash? My guess is you could structure Nash's deal as a two year contract with a player option third year, while Lin would have to be a four year contract.

No, he was granted full Bird rights last week.

Bendit wrote:

If 40 mill were the number 15 for each of the 3rd-4th year is a large gulp with definite consequences on flexibility going forward.

The only real consequence is the cap hit on the last year, which, like I mentioned, can be avoided by trading the player in advance.

This is Jeremy Lin we are discussing not someone coming off even a rookie contract showing a body of work not just in the pros but a significant college resume.

Lin's college resume is more significant than half of the players in the NBA.

As a matter of measure, Dragic would probably command the same 40 over 4 yrs. If given a choice I would take Dragic and the avoidance of salary structure problems.

I would do the same, but the Knicks seem intent on either signing Nash or extending Lin.

The only real consequence is the cap hit on the last year, which, like I mentioned, can be avoided by trading the player in advance.

You seem to be assuming he'll be playing at a level that other teams will be interested in at $15M/year (even for one year). That's more than Calderon is making for his final contract year. I don't see that as being easy to trade if Lin turns out to be a bust -- or even the backup-level PG he's most likely to be.

I'm sorry, a short stint with a Knicks team in complete disarray with their key players injured does not an All-Star rookie make. Give me the proven veteran for less money and less years who won't be looking to re-up at the end of the contract. Toronto can draft/sign/trade for their future point over the course of the next 2 seasons.

Definition of Statistics: The science of producing unreliable facts from reliable figures.

Calling it a cycle of mediocrity makes it seem like we're an ok team instead of a god awful one.

We should refer to our level of play as a cycle of Clipperdome or cycle of If We Were in the West We Wouldn't Even Win 15 Games.

This. I stand corrected.

jbml wrote:

I am thinking somewhat on the same lines. A S and T however must be for at least 3 years not counting an option and only the first year has to be guaranteed. So why not front load it. I am a big Nash booster so if he wants 3 years he would get it.

Front loading the contract would give us more cap room in your after two year scenario when I believe we could be pushing for the higher echelon of the league

Exactly, the numbers are a lot easier to move around with his contract.

Garbo wrote:

This is where I really disagree. How do we auction off our future? We're signing him as a free agent, not trading away our assets. The only player we'd end up saying goodbye to is Calderon if all the sign and trade/amnesty speculation is true. If we sign Nash, we will have a less advantageous draft pick slotting next year, but so what? How did that draft slotting help us this year?

I think the "auctioning of the future" conversation will be had in all honesty after this Nash signing.. I'm certain that Colangelo will be putting together some kind of package to bring us a legitimate small forward to really make the Nash experiment work. That would definitely cost us something. This? Some rich guy will have to spend some money. Sounds good to me.

Well, if you check where the contracts of our young players expire, other than our rookies (maybe Derozan as well) they all expire during this period. His contract effects their future earnings (if they all decide to stay for less money). Most top earners on a team are peaking, not on a decline due to age. In three years will he be our best player? If so, wouldn't the team be built around hi game? And if he is, what disarray does it create when a team built around a 40 year old loses its top player? That's without considering the space that could be used for a younger free agent.

Hmm... I get what your saying about after they sign Nash, but would those trades make sense before we allegedly get Nash? I would argue if we went for a Lin, or Lowry, or whichever young point guard that the type of SF we would go after would more likely be a longer term option. Why? To allow the new group to mature and gain chemistry together. At least that's wha would make sense. Not that we can believe Rap staff is using common sense.

You seem to be assuming he'll be playing at a level that other teams will be interested in at $15M/year (even for one year). That's more than Calderon is making for his final contract year. I don't see that as being easy to trade if Lin turns out to be a bust -- or even the backup-level PG he's most likely to be.

Unless Lin turns out to be a completely scrub, then it shouldn't hard to work out a deal. Even you have to agree that he's going to be at least serviceable in the worst case.

Expirings are more valuable than you think. Remember what teams were offering Dallas for Dampier?

I'm sorry, a short stint with a Knicks team in complete disarray with their key players injured does not an All-Star rookie make.

But that's exactly the point. He was able to reinvigorate a Knicks team without their key players. Do you honestly believe that winning 7 straight games with that disaster of a lineup was a fluke?

Also FYI, he continued to post good (starter caliber) numbers even with Melo and Amar'e back.

Give me the proven veteran for less money and less years who won't be looking to re-up at the end of the contract. Toronto can draft/sign/trade for their future point over the course of the next 2 seasons.

Self-contradiction? You claim to prefer signing a veteran PG for 36M over the next few years yet in the following sentence you say want to draft our future PG?